House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 May 1993

Mr. Robertson : On Maastricht and everything to do with it, irrespective of the merits of the individual case, and of whether it makes sense for such votes to take place at 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning. The Welsh nationalists are tied, and we are supposed to believe that that is due to their enduring commitment to the treaty and not to any of the fine print of the deal that they allegedly did.

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson : Dear, oh dear. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is making a fleeting appearance. The only other occasion on which I remember his being present for any of the previous debates was when he represented the physical evidence to the House that the Government would not move a 10 o'clock motion one evening. We shall wait a little longer for the hon. Gentleman's pearls of wisdom.

Mr. Gallie : Will the hon. Gentleman give way, having referred directly to me?

Mr. Robertson : I referred directly to the hon. Gentleman only in order to tell him that I would not allow him to intervene at the moment. I know that he usually

Column 35

jumps in at every opportunity when he is mentioned, but I am still attempting to answer the intervention by the Chief Whip of the Welsh nationalist party, who asked me why the Labour party had voted 38 times with the Tory rebels against the Government. We voted against the Government when we believed that the argument against the Government was right. If some Conservative Members cared to join us in the Division Lobby when we had protested at the brevity of some of the debates on key issues, if some Conservative Members wanted to vote with us when the Government sought to carry debates on in the middle of the night, and if some Conservative Members tried to ensure that debates took place at a proper time, they joined us. That displayed divisions on the Government side, not a lack of unity on the Opposition side.

We will continue to vote on issues on their merits. I give notice that if the Government seek to move the 10 o'clock motion this evening we shall consider that unreasonable, in view of the nature and importance of the subjects to be debated. We are not in favour of considering those important issues in the early hours of tomorrow morning.

Mr. Wigley : They want to wreck the Bill.

Mr. Robertson : We are not attempting to wreck anything. Proper sensible debate on the Bill can easily be accommodated within the normal hours of the House.

It is time for me to ask the Minister of State some questions about the alleged deal which received publicity in Wales and which led the Welsh nationalists to support the Government in voting against the principle that the composition of the Committee of the Regions should be made of locally elected councillors. It is important to establish against what the two nationalist parties voted and what they supported on that occasion. They voted in support of the Minister of State, who repeatedly said that he was not willing to accept the principle that the British delegation to the European Committee of the Regions should be made up exclusively of local authority councillors. He said he wanted it to comprise also Government appointees, such as business men. He treated us to the traditional phraseology. He wanted to keep some places for the business men who are jam -packed into every quango that the Conservatives establish. We now have many quangos taking power away from Parliament and local government. That is what the Minister said and that is for what the two nationalist parties voted.

Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Gentleman is about to launch into his traditional debate with the Scottish National party and I do not want to intrude on that. It is difficult to know precisely what Opposition Members, such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who wants to know about the deal, have in mind, because they jump up and down as if a deal was something dirty and dishonourable.

We intend to consult precisely the people of whom the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is speaking. We intend to consult, to listen and to come to arrangements. We intend to come to what are normally called deals.

Mr. Robertson : If that was the beginning and end of it, I would not have to indulge in the part of the speech that

Column 36

I am now making. But we know that there was an attempted deal between the nationalist parties and the Government over a limited aspect of the Government's package. The Government had no intention of consulting anybody except the nationalist parties about the composition of the Committee of the Regions and, had they won the vote that night, the Committee of the Regions would have been jam-packed full of the Government's usual old cronies, friends, partners and business associates.

But it would appear that there was a deal, though not a deal between Her Majesty's Government and local authority associations representing local councillors throughout the land. There was apparently a limited deal on offer to certain political parties at a national level. Some of those who were willing to do such deals are sitting in the House right now. They are willing to give away the principle of non-elected people on the Committee of the Regions in return for some squalid backstairs deal by which their positions would be protected. If the world is to know what the deal was all about and what they got, let the Minister speak now and tell everybody.

Mr. Garel-Jones : There is a point that the hon. Gentleman clearly has not understood since we started discussing the Committee of the Regions. I hope that I made it perfectly clear in Committee that far from being opposed to local government representatives sitting on the Committee of the Regions, we thought that was a likely, indeed probable, event. I also made it clear in Committee that, while we were opposed to tying ourselves down exclusively to elected councillors, we were open to the proposition that the substantial majority of representatives would be local government councillors. I assure the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)--I have never felt it necessary to apologise for what I believe is one of the finer characteristics of the House--that discussions between the Opposition and the Government take place every day through the usual channels. That enables the House to work. So I do not apologise in any way for discussions that we may have had with the nationalist parties. I assure him that the discussions with the Welsh nationalist party were predicated on the understanding that all the representatives would be from local government, and that caused us no difficulty whatever.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Before we proceed, may I remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief. The Minister's contribution was more like a speech.

Mr. Robertson : Yes, indeed it was, but it did not say anything-- that is the difference. The Minister's contribution was interesting at the end. The Minister of State, who is in charge of the Bill, said that an agreement to base the Committee of the Regions on local government councillors was expected only among the Welsh nationalists. The Minister of State will no doubt say that he did not take part in the other deal--I wonder who did.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am much too prudent to try to intervene on discussions within Scotland, which I left to other of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Robertson : The Minister is here today representing Her Majesty's Government and all those who participated in the behind-the- scenes deals. I make a clear distinction

Column 37

between the normal discussions that take place between the parties in the House on the running of the House. Last week, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I discussed whether her name should appear on amendment No. 2, and we reached agreement on that--

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : That was a discussion.

Mr. Robertson : Yes, that was a discussion--consultation took place- -[ Hon. Members-- : "A deal."] There is a difference

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. We cannot have lots of contributions, particularly from a sedentary position. We must listen to one person at a time.

Mr. Robertson : I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : If the hon. Gentleman does not like deals, will he condemn the deal that was taking place between the deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party and the Conservative rebels outside the Chamber just after the statement? Once they saw that they were being watched, they went into a huddle, but initially they were bang in the middle of the Lobby.

Mr. Rminority parties--the two separatist parties--and a unionist Government in order to defeat an Opposition amendment that would have established the important--one might say fundamental--principle that the Committee of the Regions should be composed uniquely of representatives from local government.

There is a clear distinction to be made. There was a conspiracy to defeat the Opposition amendment and support the Government, thereby supporting the Government's view that the Committee could comprise--as the Minister now says--a substantial majority of local government councillors, but could also include others, as the Minister repeatedly made clear throughout our debates, and again today. There was no question of the Minister's accepting the argument that all the representatives would be elected councillors, because there were to have been Government appointees--the words "business man" were continually on the Minister's lips. The question before us that night was whether the Government should have the right to choose from their cronies and not solely from elected councillors. The conspiracy to defeat our amendment was designed to deny the democratic right of local government councillors to represent this country on the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Gentleman is dancing on a pin. I do not know what the figures are now, but the last time that we discussed the matter, the only countries that had nominated their members to sit on the Committee of the Regions had chosen what I still regard as the more sensible option--to have the opportunity of making some nominations who were not local government representatives. For example, I was lobbied by representatives of the island communities, which was a matter we were considering until the hon. Gentleman's unwise amendment was carried.

Mr. Robertson : As someone who was born on an island, I can educate the Minister. Every island in the United

Column 38

Kingdom is represented by locally elected councillors, who have a mandate, backing and authority. If the Minister is saying that selections would be made from isolated communities, he confirms our worst suspicions. The Minister advanced that argument in the earlier debate and, despite the new friends that he had gained, his argument was overwhelmingly defeated and the principle was accepted by the Committee of the House of Commons--as it will be again this evening--that the Committee of the Regions should be composed of those with a democratic mandate.

4.45 pm

Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the amendment was carried with the support of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, island communities in Britain have an association of their own and they thought it sufficiently important and attractive to come to see me at the Foreign Office to suggest that island communities might have a representative on the Committee of the Regions. Those were the sort of representation for which we might have used any additional places, but, alas, our proposal was defeated. I do not regard it as a huge matter and, as the amendment was carried, we now accept the will of the Committee of the House. The hon. Gentleman must not work himself up into a lather.

Mr. Robertson : I am not working myself up into a lather. The Committee felt obliged to press the amendment to a vote and it voted against what the Minister said because he did not advance a reasoned view about a broad coverage of representation in the Committee of the Regions. The Minister specifically ruled out representatives with a local government mandate--an elected democratic mandate. He said that he wanted to retain places for, among others, business men. The amendment was carried as a principled objection to the Government's maintaining exactly the same selection process as they use in so many quangos. The Minister was not outvoted by the Opposition alone, but lost substantial numbers of friends among Conservative Members.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Before any other hon. Members intervene or the debate continues, I must remind the House that the purpose of the debate is not to conduct an historical review of how we have arrived at this stage, but to debate the merits or otherwise of the new clause currently under consideration.

Mr. Salmond : I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I do not want to add to the problems of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has a considerable number already. He mentioned conspiracy twice. Does he remember that the last time that word was mentioned in relation to the legislation was by his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in the early hours a week ago last Thursday? He alleged that there was a conspiracy between the hon. Member for Hamilton and the Minister of State, with a view to saving the Government's skin on the referendum vote that morning. Was that a conspiracy?

Madam Deputy Speaker : I call Mr. Robertson and ask him to bear in mind my ruling.

Mr. Robertson : Any warning that you give, Madam Deputy Speaker, must be borne very much in mind, and I

Column 39

shall narrowly restrict my answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). There was no conspiracy involved : the Labour party voted for its policy on a referendum--a policy which was established a long time ago--and the Government voted for their policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan are entirely wrong to assume or allege that there was any conspiracy between Front-Bench teams or anyone else on the referendum. The party positions had been established many months in advance.

We are talking about a clear-cut conspiracy relating to new clause 42. Had the Government got their way, and had the Welsh and Scottish nationalists been able to help the Government to victory on the matter, the Government would have won an entitlement to choose anyone they wanted from the British population to represent this country on the Committee of the Regions. We are being told--but not by the Minister of the Crown, who completely denies all knowledge of one of the deals

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I have already issued a warning to the hon. Gentleman, whose speech is now becoming not only irrelevant, but tediously repetitious.

Mr. Robertson : I am sorry if it appears that way to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to select new vocabulary and, in order to stay within your level of tolerance, I shall resist the temptation to give way to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who, during the past few days, has been prayed in aid as a great supporter of the social chapter. However, that would be to pre-empt a later debate.

There was undoubtedly an attempt to preserve the Government's right to select their cronies and the two nationalist parties were part of that.

The House is entitled to some explanation of the detail that lies behind the new clause, especially what the people of Wales were told about the deal with the Welsh nationalists. We were told that Plaid Cymru is to have one of the three or perhaps four seats on the delegation to the Committee of the Regions.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : Four.

Mr. Robertson : The hon. Member for Southend, East says four. Perhaps he knows more than others about the deal.

The Welsh nationalist party obtained only 9 per cent. of the votes in Wales at the last general election, whereas the Labour party obtained more than 50 per cent. How can the deal possibly be defended on the basis of arithmetic or equity? The Liberal Democrat party, with 15 per cent. of parliamentary votes at the last election, is apparently to get one seat on the delegation of four. The real question is how that criterion is to be extended to the rest of the country, or is the Minister of State about to tell us that he knows nothing about that either?

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson : I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I do not wish to test the tolerance of the Chair again.

Column 40

I should like the Minister, not the Welsh nationalist party, which was only one participant in the deal and can deliver nothing at all, to tell the House of Commons precisely what has been agreed for Wales, what is the breakdown between the parties and who is to select the party nominees--will it be the parties themselves or will they have to draw up a sanitised list from which the Secretary of State for Wales or his possible successor, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will choose who will represent the party in the Committee of the Regions? That issue goes to the very heart of the debate and the new clause.

Before the end of the debate, will the Minister seek guidance from his officials about what the Secretary of State for Scotland was up to? Our only evidence of a deal with the Scottish National party--all they got in return for voting with the Government, apart from being cuffed around the head by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland in subsequent Question Times--was a letter addressed to the hon. Member for Moray saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland would try for six seats on the European Committee of the Regions, with no precise breakdown.

We in Scotland have received no further details of that deal. The hon. Member for Southend, East, who is usually knowledgeable about these matters and who is himself close to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, as they share authoritative views that I read regularly in the Glasgow Herald, says that there is no deal. However, following the fiasco of that vote, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan wrote in Scotland on Sunday that there was a written agreement. He has written to every Scottish nationalist councillor in Scotland saying that there is a deal. In Scotland on Sunday he said that the deal stood, irrespective of the fate of amendment No. 28. Of course, new clause 42 is the technical rewording of amendment No. 28. Irrespective of the fate of amendment No. 28, the deal with the SNP stood, but what is the deal? The SNP will not tell us what the deal is or any detail of it, so I am asking the Minister to tell us in all honesty.

We are the House of Commons debating the Bill on Report and the right hon. Gentleman is the Minister in charge of the Bill. Will he tell me, the House and the people of Scotland whether there is a deal and, if there is a deal, what it is? What did the Secretary of State for Scotland offer the SNP that encouraged SNP Members to go into the Lobby that night and vote against an amendment that proposed that the Committee of the Regions should be drawn only from councillors? I shall give way to the Minister if he will tell me what the deal was.

Mr. Garel-Jones : When the hon. Gentleman's own party stops playing silly games with the Maastricht Bill and enters into discussions, as it has not yet done, he will find that the Government are open to listening to his point of view and making any arrangements that emerge from the discussions. Then no doubt, late, last and stumbling at the back of the queue as ever, he may discover what previous discussions have led to.

Mr. Robertson : If the carrot dangled before the Labour party is that if we get into dealing with the Minister we shall do as well as the SNP has done, it is not a very encouraging offer.

Mr. Garel-Jones rose --

Column 41

Mr. Robertson : I am not giving the Minister a second bite of the carrot. Were it his good fortune to live in Scotland, he would know that if there were a deal we should have heard about it, because the only way that the SNP could possibly get off the hook that it has been hanging on would be to tell the people of Scotland what the deal was.

The Welsh nationalists have trumpeted their apparent deal loud and long enough, but we have heard not a whisper from the SNP, for the very good and simple reason--the Minister's silence confirms it--that there was no deal. He enticed them through the Lobby and they got nothing out of it at all. He enticed them to vote against the principle of local government representatives on the Committee--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman sufficient rope. Now he must come back to the point.

Mr. Robertson : You gave me the rope, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it was the SNP which was hanged in the process.

The House has the opportunity to hear what the deal was that persuaded the SNP to do it. We are hearing tiny fragments of the deal. We are debating the Government's new clause enshrining the principle that was forced on them in the House of Commons by one of the key votes in the parliamentary proceedings on the Maastricht Bill. This is our opportunity to hear about deals, if there are any. The conspiracy appears to have come to absolutely nothing. The principle that we asked the House of Commons to enshrine carried the day without the assistance of the nationalists. This evening, the Minister claims ignorance of one deal and takes pride in another, although he is incapable of explaining what it is all about. I return to the beginning of my speech by saying that I welcome new clause 42, which enshrines an important principle not just for the House but for democracy in Britain and for a European Committee of the Regions which will have, especially in the British delegation, a democratic legitimacy that will strengthen its worth.

Sir Teddy Taylor : The debate on the Committee of the Regions has been one of the most pathetic examples of the House of Commons trying to pretend that something had importance when it had none whatsoever. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has spoken with much vigour and enthusiasm throughout these debates, would tell the people of Britain one simple fact : the Committee of the Regions will have no power to do anything at all ; it will have no budget and it will not even have its own secretariat, but will have to share its secretariat with an existing function of the EC. The fact that the poor old Welsh nationalists, for whom I have always had high regard, appear transformed into pathetic Lobby fodder ever since the strange deal was done makes me wonder about the intelligence--

Mr. Garel-Jones rose --

Sir Teddy Taylor : The Minister has been interrupting all the time, holding up our discussions and wasting time, so I shall allow him to intervene only once.

Column 42

Mr. Garel-Jones : If the Committee of the Regions is, as my hon. Friend says, a matter of such little consequence, why did he find it of sufficient importance to wish to vote with the Opposition on this matter?

Sir Teddy Taylor : This, I am afraid, is rather typical of what we have had from the Minister of State. It is pathetic. When we try to make a point, he asks if we are agreeing with the Labour party or trying to help socialism. I hope that he will not interrupt me again, and I will come back to that specific point. I can remember an occasion when we were talking about the membership of the court and I asked what was the point of giving the court all these powers if there was no way of implementing them, at which point the Minister of State jumped up and asked me if I wanted to give more powers to the European Community. That is the level of debate that we have had from him.

I can only say, as someone who has been here for 28 years and who has no influence on anything at all, that, having been present at many debates, while I have a high regard for the speeches made by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), which have been well informed, comprehensive and sincere, the Minister of State's participation in the debates has been a disgrace to democracy and to the House of Commons.

5 pm

My point is a simple one. If we are sending people to organisations, of which the European Parliament is a good example, they should be elected. They should have the support of the people of Britain. If we are sending people to any kind of organisation which takes all power away from democracy, we should send elected people who know what they are about, especially if the organisation or committee has the power to spend money. If it has no power to spend money on its organisation, people should appreciate that we are setting up a committee which is almost identical to what they had in the Soviet Union, a huge organisation of people coming from all over the Soviet Union. They sat there in their countless rows and passed resolutions, and other people always came from the Government to say that the

representatives were being most helpful and that they appreciated all the wonderful advice that they received from the Supreme Soviet. It was a pathetic organisation.

On the issue of the Committee of the Regions, we should make it clear to the people of Britain what is happening to our country. Democracy is dying, and their opinions on things will no longer matter. We are transferring power to boards, councils and commissions. People's views will be worthless and useless. This is typical of the Committee of the Regions, and I would again challenge the Minister of State, who is such a clever person. I talked about power. Has this committee any power at all? No, it has not. Does the Minister know of any power? What power does it have to do anything at all? A Minister of State who knows everything that there is to know about the European Community should be jumping to the Dispatch Box and saying that he has misled the House and that the committee has power to do this, that and the other. But it has none at all.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I confirm that the Committee of the Regions is an advisory body ; but giving advice is not an

Column 43

improper thing to do. It is what hon. Members do constantly. They give the Government advice and the benefit of their opinion. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sir Teddy Taylor : There is a substantial difference if one is making decisions on the structure of the economy and on interest rates, on the welfare of our people, on whether they can have jobs and a reasonable standard of living, on things like the agricultural policy--which is entirely outside the scope of this debate--spending vast amounts of money, as much as £250 million a week, on dumping and destroying food surpluses. People should have some control over these things. But instead of giving the people power we are setting up a whole string of worthless, useless organisations, of which the Committee of the Regions is the perfect example.

Once we have decided to set up a body which has no power and no budget, that body will be able to spend lots of money on organising itself, perhaps holding seminars or going to some of these wonderful hotels throughout Europe for discussions, or paying official visits to Wales, exclaiming how wonderful Europe and Wales are and having a grand time. While democracy is dying, they will be spending the people's money on these worthless, useless Euro-junkets, telling people that they are doing a marvellous job.

As someone who has always admired minority parties, I am not in any way upset about the Scottish nationalists. They were effective for only a short time. Their healthy independence disappeared after what seemed to be a strange, anonymous semi-deal--I very much doubt if there was any deal at all. But something substantial has happened with the Welsh nationalists and those who were decent, honourable people have suddenly changed into pathetic Lobby fodder for the Government. It is appalling. And all they have received is the pledge that they can appoint one splendid person who will be able to go to this worthless Committee of the Regions and be able to exchange flags and cakes and invite people to come over to Wales and have a grand time.

Because the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, have decided to have representatives on this worthless, useless organisation, we must have lots of Welshmen, lots of Scotsmen and lots of goodness knows what. I wonder how Northern Ireland fares in all this. We must ask ourselves whether this is true democracy. If we are to have an organisation which is interested in talking about itself and putting forward resolutions, what about the rest of the country? Have the Government thrown out the baby with the bath water and forgotten other parts of the United Kingdom?

I am in rather a special position because, having been born in Scotland, I represented a Scottish constituency and I now represent an English one. The Government must remember that, while they are wheeling and dealing on these amendments about silly organisations which have no power, they are responsible for the whole of the United Kingdom. When they offer Welsh nationalists a special deal and they, in turn, say how wonderful it is and do what they are told ever thereafter--because they choose to do it--the Government appear to have forgotten their responsibilities to places like Tilbury, which I passed through today, Southend-on-Sea, Birmingham and

Column 44

Yorkshire. But this seems not to matter. They only want to persuade the minority parties to vote for them and so they feel that they can chuck in any numbers that they like.

I find that appalling. It would be infinitely better to have no Committee of the Regions at all and for the Government to save Community money by not sending representatives. If, however, they must go, it is only fair that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland--a place with special problems and outstanding representation in the House--should have fair and reasonable representation which takes into account the population and the problems of the place and not just how many people they can shove into particular Lobbies. I have been here for 28 years. I have tried not to engage in filibustering or wasting time and I have probably just annoyed people sometimes by the things that I have said, but I feel that there is occasionally a need for troublesome individuals to tell the Government that some Back-Bench Members are being rather sickened by some of the things that are done. The Government obviously want to get the treaty through. They know that the Opposition Front Bench are on their side. But some of the pathetic deals and arrangements that they are making are contrary to democracy, and we would be much better not getting involved at all.

I should like to say a few words about another new clause to which I put my name, one in the name of the Scottish National party, in which representatives of all the parties have come together to say that there is a case for asking the people their view on some things which are rather important. I am not saying that this new clause and what it proposes are the ideal arrangement for a referendum, but I welcome very much indeed the fact that the Scottish National party, for which I have always had a high regard although I have disagreed with its views fundamentally and completely, accepts that there is a case for people giving their views on something. This call for a consultative referendum--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. We are not considering a referendum in this debate.

Sir Teddy Taylor : I am well aware of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just trying to say that I appreciate the fact that the Scottish National party has accepted that there is a case for people expressing their views. Long may they hold these views, and let them go from strength to strength in that particular regard.

I repeat : the committee is useless, worthless and ludicrous, and it will cost the taxpayers a great deal. [Interruption.] I am appalled that Labour party spokesmen should laugh at this ; it will cost our people a great deal of money. They should know that many people in their constituencies are miserable, unemployed and homeless, paying too much tax and having their houses seized--much of this because we are flinging money at the European enterprise. Their attitude to public spending, therefore, is an affront. We have only to remember that the average family pays an extra £18 a week for food and that £500 million a week is spent on the common agricultural policy. There is huge, wasteful expenditure and extravagance, and it is appalling that we are going ahead with a treaty that will cost the people of Britain a great deal more.

I have two simple questions for the Minister. First, what estimate has he made of the cost of the Committee of

Column 45

the Regions? Whatever estimate he has made will, I am sure, turn out to be an underestimate, not because Governments like to underestimate, but because European projects always turn out to cost much more than we expect them to.

I am sure that the Government have made some sort of estimate ; Governments do not agree to these things without doing that first. We want to know everything : will the committee hold conferences and seminars and go on nice little visits to Wales to tell the Welsh nationalists that they are splendid people? So let the Government tell the House, perhaps in Hansard , what their estimate is. Then, in six years' time, say, if the wretched treaty has been passed, my hon. Friends will be able to ask Ministers whether the figures were accurate. This will be an educational process for the people of Britain.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Far from finding out what it will cost to run the Committee of the Regions, I am having great difficulty in finding out the purpose of the committee. Looking at the treaty, I have yet to discover what that purpose is. Unless we know the purpose, how can we assess how much money should be spent on it?

Sir Teddy Taylor : My hon. Friend should be well aware that it has no purpose, beyond allowing a large number of people from all over Europe--

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mo n) : And Wales.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Certainly. Then they will pass resolutions. It will be almost exactly like the Supreme Soviet, to which people came from all over Russia and passed resolutions. Then people came from the Soviet Government saying, "We want to thank you for your splendid suggestions." I assure my friends from Wales that Ministers, perhaps even from the Foreign Office, will go to the committee and say, "What wonderful advice you have given us. You are giving us progressive and forward-looking ideas. We are more than grateful for them. Please carry on with your good work for Europe and the people of Wales." This will be, as I say, a pathetic, useless, worthless organisation with no budget of its own--apart from the ability to spend lots of money on itself.

I am sure that the Government will be able to give me information on my second question too. What will people be paid for attending the Committee of the Regions? Will they get nothing, as those who serve on voluntary bodies receive? It would be nice to know. I have not the slightest idea as yet. I am sure that the Minister knows everything about this, and it would be helpful if he told us how much representatives will be paid. Will they receive only an allowance, and, if so, what kind of allowance? Will they be given an allowance for hotels and travel?

Mr. Garel-Jones : Shocking!

Sir Teddy Taylor : I cannot understand why the Minister says that, because it matters to every taxpayer in his constituency and in mine.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I do not regard it as particularly shocking that if someone goes to Brussels to serve on the Committee of the Regions he might be allowed to stay in a modest hotel. My hon. Friend clearly regards it as wholly reprehensible that the taxpayer should fund that.

Column 46

5.15 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor : I would have no objection if people who were sent to this ridiculous and pathetic public relations exercise had to stay in modest hotels. I am not arguing about that. I am just asking the Minister what the cost will be and how much people will be paid. Will they stay in modest hotels or in big hotels? Will they travel first or second class?

I have found time and again--I hope that Foreign Office Ministers will bear this in mind--that when Ministers come here to give us assurances or make pledges those assurances turn out to be a load of codswallop. When we agreed to the treaty of Rome, we were told that it was merely a question of freeing trade in Europe--it committed us to nothing. It did not turn out like that.

I believe that our previous, wonderful Prime Minister was partly misled about the Single European Act. She told me that it would merely allow majority voting to be used to encourage free trade ideas. I am sure that she now feels let down, because things have not worked out quite like that. I can remember our present splendid Prime Minister telling us that the exchange rate mechanism would bring us growth and stability. Instead, it brought us unemployment, misery and horrendous costs.

I ask the Minister of State, who has nothing but contempt for the points that I am making, to bear in mind the fact that Ministers--not him, but others--have given us pledges and guarantees in the past which have unfortunately turned out to be largely worthless, to such an extent that our democracy is fading away.

Next Section

Home Page